Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will share my time with Deputy Butler. I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this most important of debates. As did other colleagues, I thank all the members of the Citizens' Assembly for their work and contribution and, of course, our Oireachtas colleagues on the joint committee for the painstaking work in which they engaged over a number of months. It certainly was not an easy body of work. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for their commitment and for the sacrifice they made. I know each of them was under considerable pressure to declare positions, and whether we agree or disagree with the final outcome they are to be thanked.

The calls that have been made so far for a respectful debate on the issue have been well made. It is important we all recognise that fundamentally this is a deeply personal issue, and it is a matter for each individual citizen, as part of a referendum, to decide what he or she believes is right. It is important that all of us are non-judgmental in this regard and that we respect the views and opinions of others. I sincerely hope the debate will be conducted along these lines. It will not be conducted like that online. Any Member of the House who declare an opinion or view on this would be well advised not to go on Twitter to see what people are saying about them, irrespective of what position they have taken.

From my point of view, I will support the holding of a referendum. That will involve voting in favour of the referendum Bill. This is because ultimately the Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, is owned by the Irish people and it is a matter for the Irish people to decide what is set out in the Constitution. A significant number of people, we do not know how many, want to see a change to Article 40.3.3°.

I will support the holding of the referendum when that Bill comes before this House.

Our party took the position in 2013 that there would be a freedom of conscience vote and I was one of the people at the time who advocated the approach, which was correct. It will now be replicated as part of this process, wherever it ultimately leads. It is not appropriate that I or any other member of our parliamentary party would seek to impose our views on other members in the party. It is very obvious there are divided opinions within our party, as there are in every strand of Irish society. We have adopted a mature approach in that respect.

With respect to the recommendations of the joint committee, it is my view that many people - I count myself as one - favour some change but certainly not change along the lines of what the joint committee has recommended. The recommendations go too far and the Government would be making a major mistake if it put the question along the lines of what the committee has recommended. It would constitute a binary or black-and-white choice but many people in our society have a much more nuanced view of the matter. Nobody can say how many such people there are but although they recognise the issues with Article 40.3.3°, they do not support access to unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. That is my position. I do not support unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks.

I have read the evidence and legal testimony and presentations given to the committee. I support retaining constitutional protection for the unborn. I appreciate the evidence given by the medics and it must be taken on board in respect of the practical difficulties of differentiating between where a risk to the health of the mother becomes a risk to her life. We have no option but to deal with that and other matters. I favour replacing the existing Article 40.3.3° with constitutional protection for the unborn that permits the Oireachtas to legislate within certain confines. That would not be easy and I am aware of the difficulties that Deputy Shortall referred to in respect of legislating. These are not insurmountable, however, and accepting that they are insurmountable means we would encroach on the most fundamental right of all. The right to life of the unborn should remain in the Constitution but in a practical and workable manner. That is my view.

There is a real risk that if the Government goes down the road it is considering, people in facing the referendum will be confronted with an unknown. If it is intended that Article 40.3.3° is to be repealed, there will be a statement of intent from the Government and I presume there will be heads of a Bill that it would seek to introduce to this House. However, there is no certainty as to the shape of the final legislation that could be adopted after a referendum. We must all accept that. This is a minority Government and its main party has correctly agreed to a freedom of conscience vote. Our party also has a freedom of conscience vote. We have already heard from a number of Deputies in the House who favour repeal and reject the notion that there should be any 12-week limit. That is a reality and they will seek to amend any legislation and extend the 12-week limit to "as late as necessary", which is a term used by a number of them. The people voting on the question of repeal simpliciterwith some form of statement of intent from the Government to introduce a Bill will be very unsure as to what they will ultimately get by way of legislation passed by this House. That is a point that will be consistently made over the course of the campaign.

I do not envy people in making up their minds on this matter. All any of us can do is say what we believe. Nobody can criticise people for stating their own beliefs, based on personal conviction. That is what I will do over the course of a campaign that will inevitably follow in the coming weeks and months. People should engage in an honest, open and respectful debate without judgment. Ultimately, this is a matter for the Irish people to decide. The beauty of our democracy is that my vote, the Minister of State's vote and the Ceann Comhairle's vote in a referendum is of equal value and weight to that of Joe Murphy, Mary McCarthy and every other citizen in our country. That is how it should be.

See this speech in context